Dataset Information

Queensland Pediatric Sepsis Breakthrough Collaborative: Multicenter Observational Study to Evaluate the Implementation of a Pediatric Sepsis Pathway Within the Emergency Department.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To evaluate the implementation of a pediatric sepsis pathway in the emergency department as part of a statewide quality improvement initiative in Queensland, Australia.

Design

Multicenter observational prospective cohort study.

Setting

Twelve emergency departments in Queensland, Australia.

Patients

Children less than 18 years evaluated for sepsis in the emergency department. Patients with signs of shock, nonshocked patients with signs of organ dysfunction, and patients without organ dysfunction were assessed.

Interventions

Introduction of a pediatric sepsis pathway.

Measurements and main results

Process measures included compliance with and timeliness of the sepsis bundle, and bundle components. Process and outcome measures of children admitted to the ICU with sepsis were compared with a baseline cohort. Five-hundred twenty-three children were treated for sepsis including 291 with suspected sepsis without organ dysfunction, 86 with sepsis-associated organ dysfunction, and 146 with septic shock. Twenty-four (5%) were admitted to ICU, and three (1%) died. The median time from sepsis recognition to bundle commencement for children with septic shock was 56 minutes (interquartile range, 36-99 min) and 47 minutes (interquartile range, 34-76 min) for children with sepsis-associated organ dysfunction without shock; 30% (n = 44) and 40% (n = 34), respectively, received the bundle within the target timeframe. In comparison with the baseline ICU cohort, bundle compliance improved from 27% (n = 45) to 58% (n = 14) within 60 minutes of recognition and from 47% (n = 78/167) to 75% (n = 18) within 180 minutes of recognition (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

Our findings on the introduction of protocolized care in a large and diverse state demonstrate ongoing variability in sepsis bundle compliance. Although bundle compliance improved compared with a baseline cohort, continued efforts are required to ensure guideline targets and sustainability are achieved.

SUBMITTER: Harley A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8577679 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundFrail older adults require specific, targeted care and expedited shared decision making in the emergency department (ED) to prevent poor outcomes and minimise time spent in this chaotic environment. The Geriatric Emergency Department Intervention (GEDI) model was developed to help limit these undesirable consequences. This qualitative study aimed to explore the ways in which two hospital implementation sites implemented the structures and processes of the GEDI model and to examine the ways in which the i-PARIHS (innovation-Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services) framework influenced the implementation.MethodsUsing the i-PARIHS approach to implementation, the GEDI model was disseminated into two hospitals using a detailed implementation toolkit, external and internal facilitators and a structured program of support. Following implementation, interviews were conducted with a range of staff involved in the implementation at both sites to explore the implementation process used. Transcribed interviews were analysed for themes and sub-themes.ResultsThere were 31 interviews with clinicians involved in the implementation, conducted across two hospitals, including interviews with the two external facilitators. Major themes identified included: (i) elements of the GEDI model adopted or (ii) adapted by implementation sites and (iii) factors that affected the implementation of the GEDI model. Both sites adopted the model of care and there was general support for the GEDI approach to the management of frail older people in the ED. Both sites adapted the structure of the GEDI team and the expertise of the team members to suit their needs and resources. Elements such as service focus, funding, staff development and service evaluation were initially adopted but adaptation occurred over time. Resourcing and cost shifting issues at the implementation sites and at the site providing the external facilitators negatively impacted the facilitation process.ConclusionsThe i-PARIHS framework provided a pragmatic approach to the implementation of the evidenced-based GEDI model. Passionate, driven clinicians ensured that successful implementation occurred despite unanticipated changes in context at both the implementation and host facilitator sites as well as the absence of sustained facilitation support.

Project description:ObjectivesThe objective was to compare the effectiveness of physician judgment and an electronic algorithmic alert to identify pediatric patients with severe sepsis/septic shock in a pediatric emergency department (ED).MethodsThis was an observational cohort study of patients older than 56 days with fever or hypothermia. All patients were evaluated for potential sepsis in real time by the ED clinical team. An electronic algorithmic alert was retrospectively applied to identify patients with potential sepsis independent of physician judgment. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients correctly identified with severe sepsis/septic shock defined by consensus criteria. Test characteristics were determined and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were compared.ResultsOf 19,524 eligible patient visits, 88 patients developed consensus-confirmed severe sepsis or septic shock. Physician judgment identified 159 and the algorithmic alert identified 3,301 patients with potential sepsis. Physician judgment had sensitivity of 72.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 72.1% to 73.4%) and specificity of 99.5% (95% CI = 99.4% to 99.6%); the algorithmic alert had sensitivity of 92.1% (95% CI = 91.7% to 92.4%) and specificity of 83.4% (95% CI = 82.9% to 83.9%) for severe sepsis/septic shock. There was no significant difference in the area under the ROC curve for physician judgment (0.86, 95% CI = 0.81 to 0.91) or the algorithm (0.88, 95% CI = 0.85 to 0.91; p = 0.54). A combination method using either positive physician judgment or an algorithmic alert improved sensitivity to 96.6% and specificity to 83.3%. A sequential approach, in which positive identification by the algorithmic alert was then confirmed by physician judgment, achieved 68.2% sensitivity and 99.6% specificity. Positive and negative predictive values for physician judgment versus algorithmic alert were 40.3% versus 2.5% and 99.88% versus 99.96%, respectively.ConclusionsThe electronic algorithmic alert was more sensitive but less specific than physician judgment for recognition of pediatric severe sepsis and septic shock. These findings can help to guide institutions in selecting pediatric sepsis recognition methods based on institutional needs and priorities.

Project description:PURPOSE:Sepsis is a common acute life-threatening condition that emergency physicians routinely face. Diagnostic options within the Emergency Department (ED) are limited due to lack of infrastructure, consequently limiting the use of invasive hemodynamic monitoring or imaging tests. The mortality rate due to sepsis can be assessed via multiple scoring systems, for example, mortality in emergency department sepsis (MEDS) score and sepsis patient evaluation in the emergency department (SPEED) score, both of which quantify the variation of mortality rates according to clinical findings, laboratory data, or therapeutic interventions. This study aims to improve the management processes of sepsis patients by comparing SPEED score and MEDS score for predicting the 28-day mortality in cases of emergency sepsis. METHODS:The study is a cross-sectional, prospective study including 61 sepsis patients in ED in Suez Canal University Hospital, Egypt, from August 2017 to June 2018. Patients were selected by two steps: (1) suspected septic patients presenting with at least one of the following abnormal clinical findings: (a) body temperature higher than 38 °C or lower than 36 °C, (b) heart rate higher than 90 beats/min, (c) hyperventilation evidenced by respiratory rate higher than 20 breaths/min or PaCO2 lower than 32 mmHg, and (d) white blood cell count higher than 12,000/?L or lower than 4000/?L; (2) confirmed septic patients with at least a 2-point increase from the baseline total sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score following infection. Other inclusion criteria included adult patients with an age ?18 years regardless of gender and those who had either systemic inflammatory response syndrome or suspected/confirmed infection. Patients were shortly follow-up for the 28-day mortality. Each patient was subject to SPEED score and MEDS score and then the results were compared to detect which of them was more effective in predicting outcome. The receiver operating characteristic curves were also done for MEDS and SPEED scores. RESULTS:Among the 61 patients, 41 died with the mortality rate of 67.2%. The mortality rate increased with a higher SPEED and MEDS scores. Both SPEED and MEDS scores revealed significant difference between the survivors and nonsurvivors (p = 0.004 and p < 0.001, respectively), indicating that both the two systems are effective in predicting the 28-day mortality of sepsis patients. Thereafter, the receiver operating characteristic curves were plotted, which showed that SPEED was better than the MEDS score when applied to the complete study population with an area under the curve being 0.87 (0.788-0.963) as compared with 0.75 (0.634-0.876) for MEDS. Logistic regression analysis revealed that the best fitting predictor of 28-day mortality for sepsis patients was the SPEED scoring system. For every one unit increase in SPEED score, the odds of 28-day mortality increased by 37%. CONCLUSION:SPEED score is more useful and accurate than MEDS score in predicting the 28-day mortality among sepsis patients. Therefore SPEED rather than MEDS should be more widely used in the ED for sepsis patients.

Project description:BackgroundPain is a central and distressing experience for children in the emergency department (ED). Despite the harmful effects of pain, ED care often falls short of providing timely and effective pain relief. Knowledge translation research targeting systems of care holds potential to transform paediatric pain care. This article reports on the first stages of an implementation project aimed at embedding effective and sustainable practice change in an Australian children's hospital ED.MethodsThe integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework underpinned a cooperative process of engagement to establish a practitioner-led, interprofessional research collaborative. The Kids Pain Collaborative (KPC) aimed to co-design innovation in paediatric ED pain care, facilitating an extensive reconnaissance of research evidence, clinician and family experiences, and local evaluation data. This critical appraisal of the context and culture of pain management generated foci for innovation and facilitation of implementation action cycles.ResultsEngaging in a complex process of facilitated critical reflection, the KPC unpacked deeply embedded assumptions and organisational practices for pain care that worked against what they wanted to achieve as a team. A culture of rules-based pain management and command and control leadership produced self-defeating practices and ultimately breakdowns in pain care. By raising a critical awareness of context, and building consensus on the evidence for change, the KPC has established a whole of ED shared vision for prioritising pain care.ConclusionsIn-depth key stakeholder collaboration and appraisal of context is the first step in innovation of practice change. The KPC provided a space for collaborative enquiry where ED clinicians and researchers could develop context-specific innovation and implementation strategy. We provide an example of the prospective application of i-PARIHS in transforming ED pain care, using a collaborative and participatory approach that has successfully enabled high levels of departmental engagement, motivation and ownership of KPC implementation as the facilitation journey unfolds.